Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

The left-periphery.pptx

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 36 Ad

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

The left-periphery.pptx

  1. 1. The left periphery By Mouad Fekkar
  2. 2. 2 Outline 1. The Cartography 2. What is The left periphery 3. The functional projections of the left periphery 3.1. Force Phrase (ForcP) 3.2. Finitess Phrase (FinP) 3.3. Focus Phrase (FocP) 3.4. Topic Phrase (TopP) 3.5. Interrogative Phrase (IntP) 4.The second line of research in the left periphery 5.The movement to the left periphery: Verb fronting 6. Crosslinguistic evidence for the universality of the Left periphery
  3. 3. 3 The cartography of syntactic structures 1
  4. 4. The cartography of syntactic structures Pollock’s (1989) Split-Infl hypothesis, which, through much related work on Romance and Germanic, eventually led to Cinque’s (1999) detailed map of the structure of the IP. These considerations led to an increased emphasis on the study of the functional lexicon, and of the configurations that functional structures could assume in clauses and phrases. This trend gave rise to the cartographic projects. • Cartography is a research program within the Principles & Parameters framework of syntactic Theory. According to Cinque and Rizzi (2008), Cartography endeavors ‘‘to draw maps as precise and detailed as possible of syntactic configurations’’ but its place lies in a broader research project, namely the study of functional (or grammatical) categories, their content, number and order.
  5. 5. The cartography of syntactic structures In the framework of this project, Three areas have been identified: a higher CP area, which functionally connects the sentence with the syntactic and pragmatic context; an intermediate area IP, where Tense, Aspect, Modality and Voice are encoded; a lower VP area, where the semantic characteristics of the lexical verb define an event by marking the relevant positions of its functional structure, thus legitimizing the insertion of arguments and participants.
  6. 6. 6 The Left periphery 2
  7. 7. The Left periphery • The study of the left periphery of the clause was among the initial topics of cartographic analysis. The initial periphery refers to the C-Projection, C-system or CP (Complementizer Phrase). • In Rizzi (1997) the research strategy was to initially study in great detail the properties of the left periphery in one language, Italian, and then enrich the analysis by bringing in comparative considerations, always trying to adhere as much as possible to uniformity guidelines. • In the proposed approach by Rizzi (1997), CP (C-system) appears to be delimited by two heads, Force and Fin(iteness) and it is split into several different projections, some of which can iterate multiple times. • The highest projection (replacing CP) is Force Phrase (ForceP), followed by Topic Phrase, Focus Phrase, another potential Topic Phrase, and Finiteness Phrase, which serves as a landing site for verb heads.
  8. 8. 8 The functional projections of the left periphery 3
  9. 9. Force Phrase (ForceP) Rizzi (1997) adopts the specification of Force proposed by Chomsky (1995). • Force is The highest position of the Left Periphery, connected with previous discourse in main clauses; its head is selected by a higher verb in embedded clauses (a main verb like think would select a declarative, wonder an interrogative, and so forth). • The head of ForceP is usually filled by a complementizer, which expresses the clause type (declarative, question, exclamative, …; Cheng 1991), as it always precedes the TopP (Rizzi 1997: 285).
  10. 10. Force Phrase (ForceP) Evidence from Italian shows that Topics can only follow Force, corresponding to the declarative complementizer “che”. Ho deciso che, la macchina, la comprerò quest’anno. ‘I decided that, the car, I will buy it this year.’
  11. 11. Finitess Phrase (FinP) The finitess head is the lowest head of the CP and it is in direct contact with the content of the IP. Fin expresses the finite or non-finite character of the clause, agreeing in finiteness with the finite or non- finite morphology of the clause-internal predicate. FinP according to Rizzi (1997) follows the TopP: Ho deciso, la macchina, di comprarla quest’anno. ‘I decided, the car, of to buy it this year.’ • The infinitival complementizer di (FinP), introducing control infinitives necessarily follows the topic. So we have: Force … Top … Fin … FinP is often assumed to be the landing site of the verb within the CP (in e.g. Germanic V2, Haegeman 1996, Roberts 2004), because it contains “a tense specification which matches the one expressed on the lower inflectional system” (Rizzi 1997: 283)
  12. 12. Finitess Phrase (FinP) • Credo, il tuo libro, di apprezzare molto I believe your book of to appreciate it a lot • (Italian, Rizzi 1997: 288, 11b)
  13. 13. Topic & Focus Rizzi (1997) notes that in languages such as English and Italian, elements that are left-dislocated often show a marked focus or topic feature, and devises a landing site of FocusP and TopicP in the left periphery. Each has a functional head that projects a category in the X-Bar schema. According to Rizzi (1997), TopP and FocP are associated with specific discourse functions and are only present when these functions are activated. The Focus head selects a focalized element as its specifier and the presupposition as its complement (Rizzi 1997).
  14. 14. Topic & Focus the Topic head selects the topicalized element as its specifier and comment as its complement (Rizzi 1997).
  15. 15. Focus Phrase (FocP) • From a discourse perspective, a focused constituent typically represents new information (i.e. information not previously mentioned in the discourse and unfamiliar to the hearer). • Focus is an element or phrase which contains new information is put in focus. Speaker a: Would you ever cheat in really tough exams? Speaker b: Under no circumstances would I cheat in exams
  16. 16. Focus Phrase (FocP) According to Bianchi, Bocci & Cruschina (2013), a typology of Focus exists: Corrective, Mirative and New Information Focus. In Italian, for example, the functional projection in the CP hosts a left peripheral focus position to express the corrective focus (CFoc) and Mirative Focus (MFoc), whereas New Information Focus (IFocP) occupies a lower clause internal position in the Periphery of the vP (Belletti 2004). The a position of the corrective focus (CFoc) and Mirative Focus (MFoc) is always unique and can be preceded and followed by topics (Rizzi, 1997). • For example: “QUESTO” is preceded and followed by the TopicP. Credo che, al presidente, QUESTO, nella riunione di domani, gli dovreste dire ‘I believe that, to the president, THIS, in tomorrow’s meeting, you should say to him’
  17. 17. Focus Phrase (FocP) • Focus and wh-items cannot co-occur; plausibly they are candidates for the same position. • a. *A GIANNI che cosa hai detto (, non a Piero) ? • ‘’TO GIANNI what did you tell (, not to Piero) • b. *Che cosa A GIANNI hai detto (,non a Piero) ? • ‘’What TO GIANNI did you tell (, not to Piero) ? • (Italian, Rizzi 1997: 291)
  18. 18. Topic Phrase (TopP) Topic has first been defined as “a preposed element characteristically set off from the rest of the clause by 'comma intonation' and normally expressing old information somehow available and salient in previous discourse" (Rizzi 1997: 285; Frascarelli & Hinterhoelzl 2007; Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010).
  19. 19. Topic Phrase (TopP) • In languages like Italian (1a), Topics are typically present in Clitic Left Dislocation structures (ClLD), in which a clitic resumptive pronoun is present in the clause following the topic and predicating some property of it (1a); in other languages such as, e.g. English (1b), a gap is present in the position in which the fronted topic is first merged: • (1) a. Il tuo libro, lo ho letto • Your book I read it. • (Italian, Rizzi 1997: 286; 3) • b. Your book, I bought yesterday • (English, Rizzi 2013: 214; 36b)
  20. 20. Topic Phrase (TopP)
  21. 21. Topic Phrase (TopP) • According to Rizzi (1997), all the orders Top Foc Top, Top Top Foc, Foc Top Top are possible, with a unique focus and any number of topics on either side of Foc. TopicP and FocusP are optional, and may remain empty. Further, given data from Italian, it becomes clear that Topic has two projections on either side of Focus, and can iterate further at those two points in the hierarchy. • This led to the following general map (Rizzi 1997): [Force [Top∗ [Foc [Top∗ [Fin [IP …]]]]]]
  22. 22. The heirerichal structure of the left periphery proposed by Rizzi (1997) [Force [Top∗ [Foc [Top∗ [Fin [IP …]]]]]] For example: Credo che ieri, QUESTO, a Gianni, i tuoi amici avrebbero dovuto dirgli • FORCE TOP FOC TOP ‘I believe that yesterday, THIS, to Gianni, your friends should have said to him • More precisely, che expresses the FORCE head, ieri and a Gianni fill Spec positions of two TOP heads, QUESTO fills the Spec position of the FOC head, while the FIN layer is not overtly realized in this kind of sentence (Rizzi, 1997; as cited from Rizzi, 1999)
  23. 23. Interrogative Phrase (IntP) • An important addition came from the study of interrogative complementizers corresponding to English if. Rizzi (2001) has argued for additional projections including IntP activated in polar questions. That is, The Italian equivalent, se, differs from che and di in that it can be both preceded and followed by a topic, and surrounded by topics: Mi domando, a mio figlio, se, la macchina, gliela compreremo quest’anno ‘I wonder, to my son, if, the car, we will buy it to him this year’ • It is also consistent with a Focus position, but with a strict order se – Foc: Mi domando se LA MACCHINA/∗LA MACCHINA se gli potremmo regalare (non la moto) ‘I wonder if THE CAR/∗THE CAR if we could give to him (not the motorbike) (Italian, Rizzi & Bocci, 2013)
  24. 24. Interrogative Phrase (IntP) • The integration of Int thus gave rise to the following map: [Force [Top∗ [Int [Top∗ [Foc [Top∗ [Fin [IP …]]]]]]]]
  25. 25. The second line of research on the left periphery The second line of research is championed by Beninca and Poletto (2004), who convincingly argue that recursion of TopPs as proposed by Rizzi is not an option, by showing that there is a one-to-one mapping between syntactic positions and semantic/pragmatic functions for different types of Topics and Foci. In light of the syntactic properties and ordering restrictions among different types of Topics and Foci in standard and nonstandard varieties of Italian, Beninca and Poletto (2004) propose that Topic and Focus are best analyzed as fields, each comprising a finite set of distinct Topics and Foci, as shown bellow (see also Beninca 2001):
  26. 26. The second line of research on the left periphery Contrary to Rizzi's (1997, 2004) claim that TopP is a set of recursive projections that can occur above and below a single FocP, the figure bellow reveals that the Topic field is composed of four types of Topics-Hanging Topic (HT), Scene-Setting Topic (Scene Setting), Left-Dislocated Topic (LD), and List Interpretation (LI)-all of which are located above the Focus field, which is composed of two types of Foci (Contrastive Focus (ContrF), and Information Focus (InfoF)). In addition, figure bellow shows that within the Topic and Focus fields, the respective sets of Topics and Foci are subject to ordering restrictions.
  27. 27. Topics in Italian • they are two types of topics in Italian, the Hanging Topic and Left Dislocation Topic, as shown by Benincà and Poletto (2004) for Italian. LD: an entire argument appears on the left. • a Di Mario/di questo libro, non (ne) parla più nessuno LD • Of Mario, not of.him-talks any more nobody HT: can only be a DP; the two constructions are distinguishable in this respect only when a prepositional phrase is involved. HT requires a resumptive pronoun. For example: • Mario/questo libro, non ne parla più nessuno HT Mario, not of.him-talks any more nobody “Nobody talks about M. /this book any more
  28. 28. Topics in Italian HT can co-occur with LD: the order is HT-LD: • ) a Giorgio, ai nostri amici, non parlo mai di lui HT-LD • ‘G., to our friends, I never talk of him’ • B *Ai nostri amici, Giorgio, non parlo mai di lui *LD-HT • ‘To our friends, G., I never talk of him’ Additionally, (Benincà, 2001) argues that a syntactic Topic cannot appear below Focus. That is, the order LD-Focus is grammatical, and the opposite order is ungrammatical. • a) Il tuo amico, A MARIA, lo presenterò! LD-Foc • Your friend, TO M., I will introduce him! • C) *IL TUO AMICO, a Mario, gli presenterò! *Foc-LD • YOUR FRIEND, to M., I will introduce to him! Therefore, the proposed order can be summarized as follows: {Frame[HT]..}{Topic...[LD]..}{Focus...[ContrastFocus]...[UnmFocus]..}
  29. 29. 29 Movement to the left periphery 4
  30. 30. Movement to the left periphery Under the Minimalist framework in which Rizzi operates, movement is considered to be “last resort,” “and must be motivated by the satisfaction of some criterion” (Rizzi 1997, p. 282). He goes on to surmise that “under such a restrictive theory we expect that no kind of (syntactic) movement to the left periphery may involve free, optional adjunction to IP” (Rizzi 1997, p. 300). Thus, some motivation is necessary to account for any presumed syntactic movement. (Rhodes,2013), assumes that movement in Chukchansi language, though seemingly unmotivated with completely optional phrasal order, to be motivated by semantic or pragmatic features such as Focus or Topic. He assumes Focus and Topic paradigms existence in Chukchansi the to account for XP movement, for which a motivation is required to comply with the Last Resort Condition.
  31. 31. Verb Fronting In Robert’s (2004) analysis of V-movement in Celtic languages and V2 properties in German, he introduced the “filled-fin” requirement, a property of these languages which requires the [Head,FinP] position to be filled with a verbal element. For example: In Breton language (exist in England), the verb undergoes head movement and adjoins to FinP while the particle a occupies [Head,FinP]: • lenn a ra Anna al levr • Read.INF PRT does Anna the book ‘Anna reads the book.’ • Rendered with brackets: FinP[Fin[V[lenn] Fin[a]] AgrSP[ra TP[Anna tlenn al levr]]] (Roberts 2004)
  32. 32. Verb Fronting Similarly in Chukchansi Language, arguments have been made that appeal to the movement of the verb to positions in the left periphery. This reflects canonical word order of Chukchansi declaratives: Ta’sh-it na’ nim nek’et. see-PST I.SUB my aunt- Ø ‘I saw my aunt.’ • Rendered with brackets: FinP[Fin[V[tashit] Fin[Ø]] TP[na’ tta’shit nim nek’et]]
  33. 33. 33 Crosslinguistic evidence for the universality of the Left periphery 5
  34. 34. The left periphery of Mandarin • Previous studies of the left periphery of Mandarin reveal that Topics and Foci are ordered hierarchically. Paul (2005) provided the hierarchal order of the left periphery of Mandarin Chinese. The hirerical structure is summarized as follows: • ‘CP (force) > TopicP > ‘even’ FocusP > IP > inner TopicP > ‘even’ focusP > vP’ • This hierarchal order corresponds only partially to that postulated by Rizzi (1997; 2002) and Belletti (2003), especially with respect to the relative order of topic and focus projections.
  35. 35. The left periphery of Japanese • Saito (2010) provides a preliminary hypothesis on the structure of the Japanese right periphery. The preliminary investigation in this paper suggests that the CP structure is fairly rigid across languages with the locus of variation in Report, Focus, and possibly Topic. Saito (2010) argues that the CP system of Japanese is remarkably similar to that in Italian. • Itallian: [ … Force [ … (Topic*) [ … (Focus) [ … (Topic*) [ … Finite [TP … ] ] ] ] ] ] (Rizzi, 1997) • Japanese: [ … [ … [ … [ … [TP … ] Finite] (Topic*)] Force] Report] (Saito, 2010) • There are only two differences aside from the linear order. One is the presence of the Report head in Japanese. Spanish and Japanese have it, but Italian and English do not. The other concerns the absence of the Focus head in Japanese. That is, languages may vary with respect the presence/absence of the Focus head within the C system (Saito, 2010).
  36. 36. References • Badan, L., & Del Gobbo, F. (2011). On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. Mapping the left periphery, 63-91 • Cheung, C. C. H. (2010, May). On the fine structure of the Left Periphery: the positions of Topic and Focus in Cantonese. In 18th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18) and the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22). Harvard University, MA, United States. • Cinque, G., & Rizzi, L. (2008). The cartography of syntactic structures. Studies in linguistics, 2, 42-58. • Benincà, P. (2004). The left periphery of Medieval Romance. • Benincà, P. & Cecilia Poletto (2004), Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi ed. (2004), 52-75. • Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337. • Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287-296). Brill. • Rizzi, L., & Bocci, G. (2017). Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, 1-30. • Saito, M. (2012). Sentence types and the Japanese right periphery. Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, 147-175.

Editor's Notes

  •  Because focus is now widely seen as corresponding between heavy stress, or nuclear pitch accent, this feature is often associated with the phonologically prominent element(s) of a sentence.

×